News The IAPA and RSF expressed their concern about the systematic and constant campaign of attacks against the independent press by the government led by President Ortega and his wife, Vice-President Rosario Murillo. Nearly half of UN member countries have obstructed coronavirus coverage Marvin RECINOS / AFP Journalists and members of the public who are attacked cannot file complaints with the police or judicial authorities because these entities are under political control and lack the autonomy needed to take action. August 22, 2018 Alarming decline in press freedom and free speech in Nicaragua – Conduct thorough investigations into all acts of violence against journalists and media outlets and strictly enforce the law against all those responsible, so that impunity does not fuel even more violence. September 29, 2020 Find out more These requests were made at a news conference in Managua after a series of meetings with civil society representatives in Nicaragua from 13 to 15 August. Organisation The media outlets that the IAPA and RSF delegation met during the visit described the grave level of oppression used by the police and paramilitary groups against the public and journalists during demonstrations. The attacks on independent media and journalists include threats, persecution, intimidation and smear campaigns, and acts of violence, especially in the provinces. They have included a bomb attack against Radio Darío’s installations and staff in the city of León, and journalist Ángel Eduardo Gahona’s murder in the city of Bluefields. The IAPA/RSF international delegation consisted of Gustavo Mohme, IAPA president and publisher of the newspaper La República (Peru); Roberto Rock, the chair of the IAPA’s Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information and editor of the news portal La Silla Rota (Mexico); Emmanuel Colombié, the head of RSF’s Latin America bureau (Brazil); and Ricardo Trotti, the IAPA’s executive director (United States). The IAPA and RSF met with media representatives, independent journalists from various provinces, representatives of the Civil Alliance for Justice and Democracy (a coalition of student movements, farmers and business leaders), former President Enrique Bolaños, Catholic Church officials and Managua-based diplomats. On the other hand, the two organizations hailed the growing social network presence, which has allowed the public to participate and to keep informed despite the government’s censorship. They also stressed the importance of the solidarity and self-protection procedures developed by the media and journalists, and urged them to extend these practices to their fellow journalists in the provinces. News The IAPA and RSF representatives undertook to send a report of their findings to the working group on the situation in Nicaragua that has been created by the Organization of American States, and undertook to provide Nicaragua’s journalists and media with their handbooks and guides on how best to cover situations involving a high level of risk. RSF and PEN urge Nicaraguan legislators to reject “foreign agents” bill Receive email alerts Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) call on President Daniel Ortega’s government to end the current violence against the media in Nicaragua, to investigate and punish attacks against journalists, and to implement the measures to protect journalists and their families requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. July 29, 2020 Find out more The IAPA and RSF ask President Ortega’s government to: The IAPA and RSF condemned the government’s use of discriminatory practices in the allocation of state advertising and radio and TV frequencies to strangle media outlets economically; restrictions on the import of journalistic supplies and equipment; abusive tax audits; and the pressure on private sector advertisers to discourage them from placing advertising with independent media outlets. Nicaragua is ranked 90th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index. NicaraguaAmericas Activities in the fieldCondemning abuses PredatorsViolence NicaraguaAmericas Activities in the fieldCondemning abuses PredatorsViolence – Implement the protective measures requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for journalists who have been attacked or threatened, and for their families; and create a national mechanism for the protection of journalists and a special prosecutor’s office to investigate crimes of violence against journalists, like those that already exist in other Latin American countries. Gruesome death threats against Nicaraguan exile journalist to go further RSF_en – Recognize – in line with the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the Chapultepec Declaration (which says press freedom is essential to democracy) – that the government and national and international bodies have an obligation to seek an appropriate and stable framework for a dialogue based on respect and tolerance that opens the way to a democratic solution to Nicaragua’s grave social and political crisis. Help by sharing this information The IAPA and RSF are alarmed by the degree to which authoritarian policies, propaganda and a secrecy culture have weakened the country’s public institutions, which are no longer trusted by the public and whose representatives refuse any contact with the media. – Put an immediate stop to all physical attacks, acts of intimidation and threats by parapolice, paramilitary and violent groups that support the government, and by online activists who defame and insult independent journalists on social networks. Follow the news on Nicaragua News News June 29, 2020 Find out more
Email WhatsApp Twitter BISHOP Brendan Leahy has confirmed that planning a safe return to public Mass has started for parishes throughout the Limerick Diocese following the publication of a framework document by the Irish Episcopal Conference (IEC) on Tuesday.Parishes have been given guidelines for the initial steps to enable them celebrate the sacraments and the necessary measures to protect the public.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up They have been asked to establish support teams to oversee implementation of the guidelines and provide appropriate training for priests, ministers, readers, employees and volunteers.They have also been asked to secure an appropriate supply of signage, cleaning/sanitising materials and accessories and items necessary for protection.The IEC framework states that the guidelines may need to be adapted in some cases, depending on factors such as the capacity and layout of churches and the size of the parish community, but in all circumstances the safety and health of people, ministers, and priests must be paramount.No church should be opened for public prayer or worship until satisfactory arrangements have been put in place.The framework states it is essential that people who are vulnerable or unwell continue to stay at home where they can participate in celebrations through online services.It sets out checklists and recommendations for physical distancing, maintenance of hygiene, liturgical matters and communication for protocols and procedures at all parishes.Welcoming the publication of the guidelines, Bishop Leahy said it would get people thinking about a return to public celebration of the sacraments, which everyone has missed so much.“However, it is not going to be without challenges as, on a parish by parish basis, there is much work to do in a short space of time to ensure that every public health measure possible is taken.“Obviously, the number of people allowed into churches will be very significantly limited and we need to get a handle on that and all other arrangements. Ultimately, communications will play a big role in this also so that the public will know the restrictions and the arrangements.“Due to existing health concerns, some people won’t be able to attend and we will have them very much in mind. If there’s a consolation it is in how much people have engaged with our services online during the Covid lockdown. We will, of course, be continuing with those and look forward to our celebrations being enhanced on June 29,” he concluded. Facebook Advertisement NewsCommunityLimerick parishes planning a safe return to MassBy Staff Reporter – June 16, 2020 664 Previous articleWATCH: Kileedy clash with Croom in 2007 Limerick SHCNext articleHarvest Fair cancellation puts pressure on care centre Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Print Linkedin
AudioHomepage BannerNews Facebook WhatsApp Google+ Google+ Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic WhatsApp Previous article30 people awaiting admission to LUHNext articleCouncil back motion supporting nurses in strike action News Highland Twitter Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Pinterest Derry draw with Pats: Higgins & Thomson Reaction News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th DL Debate – 24/05/21 By News Highland – January 29, 2019 RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Pinterest Increases to Housing grants for Elderly and Disabled persons paid by Donegal County Council will come into effect on Friday.The increases were ratified this week by the council, on foot of recommendations from the housing SPC.The council also agreed to relax the criteria for inclusion in the scheme, saying if a person’s condition isn’t included in the recognised list, it can be considered on its merit.Cllr Patrick Mc Gowan says it’s an important step forward:Audio Playerhttp://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pmghjghjghjghjggrants.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. Twitter FT Report: Derry City 2 St Pats 2 Facebook Increase to Housing grants for Elderly & Disabled come into effect on Friday
Google+ News By News Highland – September 5, 2017 Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Pinterest WhatsApp Publicans in Republic watching closely as North reopens further Pinterest Community Enhancement Programme open for applications Previous articleTyrone County Board hold their September meeting tonightNext articleMickey Harte to stay on as Tyrone Manager in to 2020 News Highland Twitter Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Twitter Facebook Google+ Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic The main Clonmany to Buncrana road, which wasy closed at Drumfries after a lorry overturned earlier, has reopened.No one was seriously injured during the incident. WhatsApp Main Buncrana to Clonmany reopens after earlier incedent RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Facebook Renewed calls for full-time Garda in Kilmacrennan
FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail Senator Joe Donnelly Meets Supporters In EvansvilleNOVEMBER 2ND, 2018 JOYLYN BUKOVAC EVANSVILLE, INDIANACandidates are making a final push before voters head to the polls next Tuesday. Indiana incumbent Senator Joe Donnelly stopped in Evansville for the second time in two weeks. One of the closest watched races in the upcoming midterm elections is the Indiana Senate race. Therefore, it is no wonder Joe Donnelly is touring Indiana and making another stop in the tri-state.On Tuesday, November 6th, Hoosiers will make a decision that could ultimately alter the party majority in Congress. Senator Donnelly says he is not just for the Democratic Party; he’s for the people.Senator Donnelly was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012 and is facing Republican challenger Mike Braun in the upcoming midterms.The focus of today’s campaign stop was encouraging voters to get out and make their voices heard.“Your vote is your voice, and this may be the biggest election of our lifetimes and so, you know I can’t control the weather, but you have the opportunity to make sure that whatever happens in the years ahead that you were part of determining what it was. And you’d think in the sacrifices made by so many to our country who fought overseas, who put their lives on the line, who lost their lives to save this nation, the least we can do is to vote,” says Donnelly.Indiana Secretary of State candidate, Jim Harper, joined Donnelly at today’s event. Local candidates also took the stage to be recognized for their involvement.Election day is Tuesday, which means the only day left to vote early is Saturday, November 3rd. Two Evansville polling places you can cast your ballot are Northeast Baptist Church and Cedar Hall School. Both locations will be open from 8 AM to 3 PM.
Greggs has reported an “exceptional” six months of trading, with strong growth in both sales and profit.The food-to-go business, which is now operating 1,984 shops, has seen sales across its business rise 14.7% to £546m in the 26 weeks to 29 June. Like-for-like sales through company-managed shops rose 10.5%.Greggs said the performance had been driven by strong sales of traditional bakery items, the popularity of the new vegan-friendly sausage roll and growth in Fairtrade coffee, breakfast and new hot food options.Hot foods are also being developed with the roll-out of cabinets supporting growing sales of new lines alongside Greggs’ existing hot sandwich range, and the company plans to launch trials of extended late opening hours in the autumn.Greggs has extended its click-and-collect pilot to seven cities and its trial of delivery options to include Just Eat alongside its existing Deliveroo partnership.“These trials are providing valuable learning around the operational approach that must be adopted to ensure that customers receive a great service, however they shop with Greggs,” stated the company.The company also said it planned to increase investment in strategic initiatives in 2019, including further improvements to service levels in its shops and digital platforms, better availability of hot food and further enhancements to its reputation as a responsible business.Greggs is continuing investment in its supply chain and, in the first half of 2019, completed the commissioning of new manufacturing lines for bread rolls in its Manchester and Enfield sites, doughnuts in Newcastle and cream cakes in Leeds.The company said substantial progress had also been made in the construction of its distribution centre at Amesbury, Wiltshire, which is due to be commissioned at the end of the year.Later in 2019, the company will expand distribution capabilities at its Treforest site in south Wales and start work on increasing production and frozen storage capabilities at the savoury pastry site in Newcastle upon Tyne.Greggs opened 54 new shops over the period and closed 23, and continues to expect to open around 100 net new shops for the year as a whole.The company’s underlying pre-tax profit margin grew to 7.5%, up from 5.4% in the first half of 2018, which Greggs attributed to strong sales growth and operational cost control. Underlying pre-tax profit (excluding property gains and an exceptional charge) was £40.6m, up from £25.7m the previous year.“Greggs has delivered an exceptional first-half performance, building on the strong finish to 2018,” said chief executive Roger Whiteside.“We have continued to make strategic progress with our programmes of investment in infrastructure, to support future growth, and in developing the products and channels to market that will help achieve our ambition to be the customers’ favourite for food-on-the-go.”
March 1, 2005 Regular News Proposed ethics advisory opinions Proposed ethics advisory opinions The Professional Ethics Committee revised Proposed Advisory Opinions 04-1, 04-2, and 00-2 (Reconsideration) at its meeting on January 21, 2005, after consideration of comments received by Florida Bar members. Proposed Advisory Opinions 04-1, 04-2, and 00-2 (Reconsideration) as revised are reprinted below. Pursuant to Procedure 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the proposed opinion. The committee will consider any comments received at a meeting to be held in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s Annual Meeting on Thursday, June 23, from 9 a.m until noon at the Orlando World Center Marriott. Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 04-1 (January 21, 2001) A member of The Florida Bar has inquired about the appropriate course of conduct in the representation of a client who has stated his intent to commit perjury at his upcoming criminal trial. The client has repeatedly expressed the client’s intent to commit perjury and, despite the lawyer’s repeated warnings, insists upon testifying falsely. The client has been warned that the lawyer must and will advise the court if a fraud is made upon the court. The lawyer has questioned the lawyer’s ethical obligations under this scenario. This inquiry addresses the circumstances when a lawyer definitely knows that the client intends to commit perjury. This is distinct from the many other situations where the lawyer may suspect but does not know that the client intends to commit perjury. This opinion only addresses this specific inquiry. Many ethics rules relate to this inquiry. Rule 4-1.2(d), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. Rule 4-1.6, the confidentiality rule, which is very broad, applies “to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.” Comment, Rule 4-1.6. However, there are exceptions to the confidentiality rule. Rule 4-1.6(b)(1) requires a lawyer to reveal information necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime. While interpretation of statutes is beyond the scope of an ethics opinion, it appears that it is a crime for a lawyer to permit or assist a client or other witness to testify falsely. See Florida Statutes §§ 837.02 and 777.011. The “Candor Towards the Tribunal” rule, Rule 4-3.3, provides in pertinent part: (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly : (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; * * * (4) permit any witness, including a criminal defendant, to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures. (b) Extent of Lawyer’s Duties. The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6 [concerning lawyer-client confidentiality]. [Emphasis added.] A lawyer’s obligation to make disclosures under Rule 4-3.3 is triggered when the lawyer knows that a client or a witness for the client will make material false statements to a tribunal. Under the facts presented, the lawyer knows the client will make a misrepresentation to the court because the client has repeatedly expressed his intent to commit perjury. The comment to Rule 4-3.3 provides the following guidance: If a lawyer knows that the client intends to commit perjury, the lawyer’s first duty is to attempt to persuade the client to testify truthfully. If the client still insists on committing perjury, the lawyer must threaten to disclose the client’s intent to commit perjury to the judge. If the threat of disclosure does not successfully persuade the client to testify truthfully, the lawyer must disclose the fact that the client intends to lie to the tribunal and, per 4-1.6, information sufficient to prevent the commission of the crime of perjury. A lawyer is required to reveal information that is necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime, including the crime of perjury. Rule 4-1.6(b)(1), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The comment to Rule 4-1.6 provides: It is admittedly difficult for a lawyer to ‘know’ when the criminal intent will actually be carried out, for the client may have a change of mind. * * * Where practical the lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to the purpose. If the lawyer knows that the client will testify falsely, withdrawal does not fulfill the lawyer’s ethical obligations, because withdrawal alone does not prevent the client from committing perjury. Rather, a lawyer must disclose to the court a client’s intention to commit perjury. Timing of the disclosure may vary based on the facts of the case and, in some cases, may be made ex parte in camera. Ultimately, the method of disclosure is subject to the discretion of the court. This disclosure causes a conflict of interest between the lawyer’s ethical obligation to disclose and the client’s interest. Rule 4-1.7, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Due to the conflict, the lawyer must move to withdraw. Rule 4-1.16(a), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Notwithstanding good cause to withdraw, if the court requires the lawyer to continue the representation, the lawyer must comply with the court’s order. Rule 4-1.16(c), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. A lawyer may offer the client’s testimony in the narrative only if the court orders the lawyer to do so. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In the event that the client does not give advance notice to the lawyer prior to testifying falsely, Rule 4-3.3(a)(2) and the comment require the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures to rectify the fraud. The comment to Rule 4-3.3 states: When false evidence is offered by the client, however, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to keep the client’s revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or, if it has been offered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. * * * If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate’s proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation….[I]f withdrawal will not remedy the situation or is impossible and the advocate determines that disclosure is the only measure that will avert a fraud on the court, the advocate should make disclosure to the court. It is for the court then to determine what should be done-making a statement about the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial, or perhaps nothing. In conclusion, when a lawyer is representing a criminal client who has stated an intention to commit perjury, the lawyer is obligated, pursuant to Rules 4-1.2(d), 4-1.6(b)(1) and 4-3.3(a)(4), to disclose the client’s intent to the court. If the lawyer is not given advance notice of the client’s intent to lie, and the client offers false testimony, then the lawyer must convince the client to agree to disclosure and remediation of the false testimony; failing that, the lawyer must disclose to the court anyway. Absent client consent, the lawyer’s disclosure of the client’s false testimony or intent to offer false testimony will create a conflict between the lawyer and the client requiring the lawyer to move to withdraw from representation pursuant to Rule 4-1.16(a). If the court requires the lawyer to remain in the case, despite good cause for withdrawal, the lawyer must do so. Rule 4-1.16(c). It is then up to the court to determine what should be done with the information. This opinion is limited to the situation presented when a lawyer knows that his or her client is going to commit perjury. This opinion does not address the situation when a lawyer merely suspects but does not know that the client intends to commit perjury. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 04-2 (January 21, 2005) A member of The Florida Bar has requested an advisory opinion regarding a provision that the opposing party in securities litigation wants to include in a settlement agreement. The provision at issue states: Other than discussions between the parties, their immediate families, their respective attorneys, accountants, government officials, and self-regulatory bodies such as the NASD, all parties and their attorneys and agents agree, acknowledge and consent that they shall not in any method or manner discuss, publish, or disseminate any information concerning the settlement or the terms of this Release with any other party not specifically authorized by this Release to receive such information. Further, the Claimant and their attorneys and agents agree not to include or involve the Claimant’s claims, accounts, or investments in any other claim, dispute, action, negotiation, or proceeding against Respondent, its respective present or former parties and affiliates, and each of their officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, or registered representatives, including but not limited to….. The inquiring attorney states that he often represents several clients who are pursuing the same broker-dealer. The inquiring attorney is concerned that this provision impacts his ability to effectively represent other current or future clients. Thus, the inquiring attorney asks whether he may ethically enter into an agreement containing this provision. Rule 4-5.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits clauses in settlement agreements that restrict the lawyer’s right to practice. Specifically, the rule states: A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy between private parties. The comment regarding this portion of the rule states “[s]ubdivision (b) prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.” ABA Model Rule 5.6(b) is identical to Rule 4-5.6(b). In Formal Opinion 93-371, the ABA Ethics Committee stated the three public policy provisions behind the rule: The rationale of Model Rule 5.6 is clear. First, permitting such agreements restricts the access of the public to lawyers who, by virtue of their background and experience, might be the very best available talent to represent these individuals. Second, the use of such agreements may provide clients with rewards that bear less relationship to the merits of their claims than they do to the desire of the defendant to “buy off” plaintiff’s counsel. Third, the offering of such restrictive agreements places the plaintiff’s lawyer in a situation where there is conflict between the interests of present clients and those of potential future clients. While the Model Rules generally require that the client’s interests be put first, forcing a lawyer to give up future representations may be asking too much, particularly in light of the strong countervailing policy favoring the public’s unfettered choice of counsel. The Professional Ethics Committee has not previously addressed subsection (b) of Rule 4-5.6 or its predecessor in the prior Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-108(B) 1. The only Florida state court case where the rule is discussed in any substance is Lee v. Florida Department of Insurance, 586 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, Lee addressed the legal rather than the ethical implications of Rule 4-5.6(b), and did so in the context of an appeal from an administrative law judge’s refusal to disqualify an attorney from representing an agency pursuant to the terms of a prior civil suit settlement agreement. The administrative law judge had found the restriction violative of Rule 4-5.6(b) and declared it unenforceable by reason thereof. The appellate court in Lee held that the Administrative Procedures Act did not grant administrative law judges jurisdiction to declare contracts void, and that only courts of competent jurisdiction can do so. Unfortunately, its holding is obscured by the fact that the paragraph begins with dictum. It reads: To use rule 4-5.6 as the basis for invalidating a private contractual provision is manifestly beyond the stated scope of the Rules and their intended legal effect. Until paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement has been voided, canceled, or nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction, it must be treated as valid and binding on all parties legally affected by its terms. Whether attorney Bateman acted unethically in violation of the Rules by participating in the negotiation of a settlement agreement that included the provisions in paragraph 8 and should be disciplined therefor is not the issue in this proceeding. (Emphasis added; footnote 3 referencing the jurisdictional issue, deleted) 586 So. 2d at 1188-1189. It should also be noted that Lee preceded and its dictum appears to conflict with the Florida Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Chandris v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995) in which the supreme court held “a contingent fee contract entered into by a member of The Florida Bar must comply with the rule governing contingent fees in order to be enforceable.” Id. at 185-186. While the legal validity of a particular agreement is an issue separate from whether the agreement comports with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Chandris dealt with the contingency fee rules rather than Rule 4-5.6(b), Chandris indicates that the court is willing to consider ethical considerations in determining whether a particular agreement is enforceable. Chandris was expressly followed in Elser v. Law Office of James Russ, P.A., 679 So.2d 309 (Fla. 5 th D CA 1996) (an engagement letter’s prospective waiver of a right to complain about invoiced fees if not asserted within 10 days after the date of the invoice, regardless of the date of receipt of the invoice, was held unenforceable as against public policy). Another case discussing Florida Rule 4-5.6 and also discussing the Lee case is an unreported case from the Southern District of Florida, Adams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 2001 WL 34032759 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2001).In connection with the settlement of the case, lawyers for the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with BellSouth to provide “consulting” services to the telecommunications company. The BellSouth attorneys argued to the District Court that their conduct did not violate Rule 4-5.6(b) because it only involved a “limited” restriction on the right of the plaintiff lawyers to practice which was allowed under the Lee decision. The federal court disagreed, observing: For several reasons, this Court therefore does not believe that Lee condones the practice restriction negotiated and agreed to in this case. First, there is no evidence that the practice restriction was designed in any way or constructed in any limited fashion to prevent the disclosure of confidential information. No party has revealed to this Court any serious argument along these lines. Rather, it is clear from the record and the testimony of the lawyers that BellSouth sought a practice restriction on Plaintiffs’ counsel to prevent Plaintiffs’ counsel from bringing future similar cases against BellSouth with the same kind of terrorist tactics used against BellSouth in this case. In short, the practice restriction was a payoff to Plaintiffs’ counsel to make them go away and never come back. As I explain infra, this type of arrangement is a violation of Rule 4-5.6 for well-grounded public policy reasons.Second, the practice restriction was not written to protect the clients of Plaintiffs’ counsel but rather to protect the opposing party, BellSouth. In fact, the evidence in this case makes clear that Plaintiffs never were informed of the existence, terms, or content of the practice restriction agreement by any of the lawyers. The Lee exception is designed to safeguard a client’s confidential disclosures to her lawyer and avoid a potential violation of conflict of interest rules through a lawyer’s subsequent representation of a different client in a related case. Here, the practice agreement was constructed for the benefit of the opposing party (without the knowledge of Plaintiffs’ clients) in a manner that placed Plaintiffs’ counsel in a direct conflict of interest with their clients a scenario inconsistent with the reasoning of Lee and the spirit of the bar rules. I therefore find the Lee dicta inapposite. Further, I also believe that had BellSouth’s lawyers engaged in the appropriate level of research into the issue, it would have been clear to them (if it already was not clear on its face) that the negotiated consulting arrangement was unethical. 2001 WL 34032759 at pp. 5-6 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). While Florida has no ethics opinions as to Rule 4-5.6(b), other jurisdictions do have opinions as to their version of the rule. These opinions include a number of opinions dealing with settlement agreements directly restricting lawyers from bringing claims against the other party again. See, ABA Formal Opinion 93-371, North Carolina Opinion RPC 179 (1994), California Formal Opinion 1988-104, Oregon Opinion 1991-47, and Michigan Bar, Opinion CI-1165. All of these opinions found such provisions to be prohibited under their rules. Other states have dealt with provisions that seek to impose indirect restrictions on an attorney, rather than directly forbidding an attorney from representing others against a certain party. For example, in Texas Opinion 505 (1995), the Texas Committee determined that a settlement provision barring an attorney from soliciting people to bring suit against the opposing party and from sharing fees with other lawyers in the future in cases against the opposing party to be a violation of its version of the rule. Similarly, the New York City bar determined that its version of the rule was violated by a settlement provision barring an attorney from encouraging others to bring claims and from assisting or cooperating with other attorneys to bring claims against the opposing party. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Opinion 1999-3. The Colorado Bar in its Opinion 92 (1993) discussed a variety of indirect restrictions that could run afoul of its rule 5.6(b), including “barring a lawyer representing a settling claimant from subpoenaing certain records or fact witnesses in future actions against the defending party, preventing the settling claimant’s lawyer from using a certain expert witness in future cases, and imposing forum or venue limitations in future cases brought on behalf of non-settling claimants.” The committee formulated a test to use to help determine whether a given provision in a settlement provision improperly restricted a lawyer’s right to practice. As stated by the committee, “the test of the propriety of a settlement provision under Rule 5.6(b) is whether it would restrain a lawyer’s exercise of independent judgment on behalf of other clients to an extent greater than that of an independent attorney not subject to such a limitation.” The ABA issued an opinion determining that a ban on the use of information learned from a representation violates Model Rule 5.6(b), but that a ban on disclosure of information learned from the representation of a client does not violate Model Rule 5.6. The ABA committee reasoned that a ban on the use of information effectively prevents a lawyer from representing future clients because the lawyer’s inability to use the information would create a conflict with the future clients under Model Rule 1.7(b) that could not be waived. ABA Formal Opinion 00-417 (2000). Other states have address restrictions on the use or disclosure of information that are made as part of a settlement agreement. The Tennessee Ethics Committee determined in Opinion 97-F-141 that a provision restricting both a plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney from assisting others by using case information violated Tennessee Rule DR 1-208(B). Additionally, the New York State Bar Association, in its Opinion 730 (2000) determined that an attorney could not agree to confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement where the terms of the agreement were broader than the attorney’s duty of confidentiality. The committee stated: . . . terms of a settlement agreement may violate DR 2-108(B) if their practical effect is to restrict the lawyer from undertaking future representations and if they involve conditions or restrictions in the lawyer’’s future practice that the lawyer’s own client would not be entitled to impose. The New Mexico Bar issued an opinion, Advisory Opinion 1985-5 dealing with certain provisions in a settlement agreement. The first was a confidentiality provision as to the amount and terms of the settlement which the New Mexico Bar stated was permissible. The second provision required the plaintiff’s attorney to give her entire case file to the defense attorney to be sealed. The third provision required the plaintiff’s attorney to agree not to represent any more cases arising out of the same situation (a prison riot). The opinion concludes that the third provision violates New Mexico Rule 2-108(B) which prohibits a lawyer from entering into an agreement restricting his right to practice law in connection with the settlement of a controversy or lawsuit. As to the second provision, the opinion notes that under New Mexico law, the case file is the property of the client. 2 H owever, the committee noted the file also contained the attorney’s work product which remained the attorney’s property and to which opposing counsel normally had no access. The committee determined that by making the provision include the entire file, it necessarily included the attorney work product, and as a result was a violation of Rule 2-1.08(b) because this may inhibit her ability to represent clients in the future and would allow defense counsel to “accomplish indirectly what they cannot accomplish by directly precluding the attorney from representing other plaintiffs with similar claims.” The rule prohibiting settlement agreements restricting a lawyer’s right to practice applies to both the attorney making the offer and the attorney accepting it. See, e.g., ABA Formal Opinion 93-371, Michigan Opinion CI-1165, New Mexico Opinion 1985-5, Colorado Formal Opinion 92, New York State Opinion 730, North Carolina Opinion RPC 179, and California Formal Opinion 1988-104. Additionally, any residual doubt about whether the prohibition applies to both sides of an agreement is resolved by Rule 4-8.4(a) which prohibits an attorney from violating the rules through the acts of another. Therefore, an attorney who “induces” another attorney to violate an ethics rule would be guilty of violating the ethics rules as well. While the above discussed authorities from other jurisdictions are not binding on the Professional Ethics Committee, they provide guidance to the Committee in interpreting Florida Rule 4-5.6 and the provision presented by the inquiring attorney. If the Committee were faced with a provision that directly stated that the inquiring attorney could not represent any other clients before the opposing party, we would find such a direct restriction to be an obvious violation of Rule 4-5.6. However, the Committee is not reviewing such a provision. If the provision is prohibited by Rule 4-5.6, it would be as an indirect restriction on the inquiring attorney’s ability to practice. In making such a determination, the provision must be examined carefully. The tests formulated by other jurisdictions are useful in this analysis. Does the provision, under the test formulated by the New York State Bar Association in its Opinion 730, seek to impose restrictions or conditions on the inquiring attorney’s future practice that the inquiring attorney’s own client would not be entitled to insist upon? Further, as stated by Colorado Opinion 92, does the provision restrain the inquiring attorney’s exercise of independent judgment on behalf of his clients to an extent greater than that of an attorney not subject to the provision? Additionally, as noted in New Mexico Opinion 1985-5, does the provision allow the opposing party to indirectly accomplish what it cannot accomplish directly, namely prevent the inquiring attorney from representing other clients against it in the future? Consideration should also be given, as the court did in the Lee case to whether the clause benefits the inquiring attorney’s client or whether it benefits the opposing party instead. Another consideration that should be made is whether the provision furthers or hinders the public policies Rule 4-5.6(b) seeks to protect. While these tests are worded differently, they all boil down to one essential question: how does a particular settlement provision affect an attorney’s ability to represent another client in a matter involving the same or a related opposing party? If the provision has no effect on a lawyer’s ability to represent such a client, the provision will not run afoul of Rule 4-5.6(b). On the other hand, if a provision does affect a lawyer’s ability to represent another client and that effect is a negative affect, the provision is impermissible under Rule 4-5.6. Keeping this in mind, the Committee turns now to examine in detail the provision submitted by the inquiring attorney. The first clause of the settlement provision submitted by the inquiring attorney states: Other than discussions between the parties, their immediate families, their respective attorneys, accountants, government officials, and self-regulatory bodies such as the NASD, all parties and their attorneys and agents agree, acknowledge and consent that they shall not in any method or manner discuss, publish, or disseminate any information concerning the settlement or the terms of this Release with any other party not specifically authorized by this Release to receive such information. To the extent this clause is merely a confidentiality agreement as to the terms of the settlement it does not pose an ethical problem, provide there is no legal prohibition against confidentiality of a particular settlement. 3 The clause at issue makes only the terms of the settlement and release itself confidential. Such confidentiality clauses have typically been determined not to violate ethics rules. See, e.g., New Mexico Opinion 730 and Colorado Opinion 92. Also, the provision does not contain a provision concerning prohibiting the inquiring attorney from using information about the case itself. Therefore, it differs from the provisions found to be problematic in ABA Formal Opinion 00-417, Tennessee Opinion 97-F-141 and New York State Bar Association Opinion 730. The only other possible problem with the clause is the confidentiality provision as to the terms of the release itself. The Florida Supreme Court has held that agreements seeking to prevent someone from filing a bar grievance are unenforceable and unethical. See, The Florida Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1989) and The Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2000). However, the clause does allow information to be given to “self-regulating bodies” and The Florida Bar is a self-regulating body for attorneys. Presumably then this sentence does not impose a restriction on any of the signatories’ ability to file a bar grievance against any of the attorneys involved in the case. The second clause of the provision is more problematic. It states: Further, the Claimant and their attorneys and agents agree not to include or involve the Claimant’s claims, accounts, or investments in any other claim, dispute, action, negotiation, or proceeding against Respondent, its respective present or former parties and affiliates, and each of their officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, or registered representatives, including but not limited to….. If the provision is intended to be a general release of liability as to the defendants and affiliated parties it would not run afoul of Rule 4-5.6(b). However, if the provision were merely to release the respondent and the other people listed from future claims by the Claimant, why would the provision include the attorney representing the Claimant? The inclusion of the attorneys in the provision seems to indicate that the provision is not merely a general release of liability. Thus, if the provision is not a release of liability , the Committee must examine how this provision will affect the inquiring attorney’s ability to represent other clients. The clause would prohibit the inquiring attorney from including or involving the “Claimant’s claims, accounts or investments in any other claim, dispute, action, negotiation or proceeding” against the Respondent and the named affiliates and people. Rule 4-1.9(a) would allow the inquiring attorney to bring substantially similar claims to those he brought for the client as long as it would not be adverse to the interests of the now former client. Further, the inquiring attorney would be allowed to use information relating to the representation of the Claimant as long as it was not to the disadvantage of the former client. The provision appears to be a broader restriction on the inquiring attorney than the client would be entitled to impose under Rule 4-1.9. Additionally, if the inquiring attorney could not bring claims otherwise permissible under Rule 4-1.9, as to his former client’s “claims, accounts or investments” against the brokerage firm and its named affiliates his independent professional judgment on behalf of clients who may have claims against the brokerage would be limited in such a manner as to cause a conflict under Rule 4-1.7(b) as to such clients. It is not clear how this provision would benefit the inquiring attorney’s current client. On the other hand, it certainly would benefit the opposing party to prevent the inquiring attorney from representing others against it and its affiliates. The provision hinders, rather than advances the public policy reasons behind Rule 4-5.6. In sum, the second clause of the settlement provision submitted by the inquiring attorney runs afoul of Rule 4-5.6. Accordingly, the inquiring attorney may not ethically enter into a settlement containing this clause. In summary, Rule 4-5.6(b) prohibits Florida attorneys from proposing or agreeing to a restriction on an attorney’s right to practice in connection with a settlement of a matter between private parties. The prohibition applies to both direct and indirect restrictions. In determining whether a particular provision violates the rule, the effect of the provision on the attorney’s ability to represent other clients must be examined. This determination should include consideration of whether the provision imposes restrictions on the attorney broader than the attorney’s own client would be able to insist upon, whether the provision would limit the attorney’s independent professional judgment in the representation of other clients, whether the provision allows an opposing party to indirectly achieve a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice, whether the provision benefits the client or the opposing party and whether the provision furthers or hinders the public policy reasons Rule 4-5.6 was founded upon. This list of considerations is not intended to be all-inclusive as different circumstances may call for different considerations. Nor is it intended that the considerations listed above form a rote checklist that must be followed before a provision can be found to be ethically impermissible. This is because, fundamentally, all of the considerations listed above are different ways of asking the same basic question: what is the effect of the provision on a lawyer’s ability to represent other clients. If the provision negatively affects the lawyer’s ability to represent other clients, the provision cannot be permissible under Rule 4-5.6. Taking all of this into consideration in examining the provision before the Committee, the Committee finds that the second clause of the provision is impermissible under Rule 4-5.6(b) because it negatively affects the inquiring attorney’s ability to represent other clients. However, if the parties actually intend the provision to be a release of liability, the portion of the provision referring to the attorneys must be eliminated. If this portion of the provision is removed, then the provision would not violate Rule 4-5.6(b). 1 D R 2-108(B) stated “[i]n connection with the settlement of a controversy or suit, a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement that restricts his right to practice law.” 2 F lorida law is different. Under Florida law the case file is considered to be the attorney’s property. See, Ethics Opinion 88-11(rec). However, due to the resolution of the issue in the New Mexico opinion, this difference in the law does not mean the reasoning of the New Mexico opinion is not relevant. 3 See, e.g.; Fla. Stat. § 69.081 (“Sunshine in Litigation Act” which prohibits judgments, agreements and contracts that have the effect of concealing a public hazard). Whether a provision outside the ethics rules prohibits a confidentiality clause in any given case, is a question of law that is beyond the scope of an advisory ethics opinion. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 00-2 (Reconsideration) (January 21, 2005) The Committee has reconsidered Opinion 00-2 which discourages lawyers from being involved in settlement agreements in which an insurance company places funds directly into an account in a client’s name instead of sending the lawyer a check which is then deposited into the lawyer’s trust account. Opinion 00-2 concludes that this type of arrangement, sometimes known as a “Safe Haven Account” or “FUNDaccount,” prevents a lawyer from fulfilling his or her ethical obligations to third parties. See Rule 5-1.1 and Rule 5-1.2, Comment, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Additionally, the Committee was concerned about “reducing available funds that otherwise would be used to assist in the administration of justice through participation in the Supreme Court approved IOTA program.” The Committee is concerned that Opinion 00-2 might be interpreted as mandating limitations on the client’s ability to direct payments of the client’s share of settlement funds into specific financial accounts or to designated third party recipients without having those funds placed first in a lawyer’s trust account. The client has wide discretion in directing the manner in which the monies owed to the client are distributed provided, however, that the client may not direct payment of funds in a manner intended to avoid the client’s legal obligation to pay the client’s lawyers or to pay debts owed to third parties. The Committee believes that the concerns expressed in Opinion 00-2 can be avoided in a settlement where the only funds going directly from the insurance company into a client’s financial account or to another recipient designated by the client are monies owed to the client and the insurance company issues a separate check to the attorney for the remaining balance, including attorney’s fees, any applicable costs, and amounts owed to third parties which are subject to lien or other valid legal claim that a lawyer is obligated to protect. See Florida Ethics Opinion 02-4. The attorney would then deposit these funds into his or her attorney trust account and distribute the funds in accordance with the attorney’s ethical obligations. This agreement gives a lawyer control over that portion of settlement proceeds covering fees, costs, and amounts to which third parties may have valid legal claims that a lawyer is obligated to protect. This permits the lawyer to fulfill his or her ethical duties under Rule 5-1.1 and Rule 5-1.2, Comment, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. It also allows for the collection of interest on these funds, through placement in an IOTA account when required by Rule 5-1.1(e). In conclusion, a lawyer may participate in an arrangement where an insurance company pays only that portion of the settlement proceeds owed directly to the client into a client’s financial account or to another recipient designated by the client. As stated in Opinion 00-2, however, a lawyer should not participate in a settlement if the funds deposited into the client’s account include the attorney’s fees, costs and funds to which a third party may have a claim.
(WBNG) — With Ramadan beginning Thursday evening, the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier is taking steps to make sure everyone can celebrate despite the COVID-19 Crisis. “I think it’s important for all synagogues, churches and mosques to step up their game and continue to have services as much as they can even if they have to go virtual, make the best of the situation,” he said. Imam Anas told 12 News that for many of his members, prayer is a daily part of life and he is determined to make sure they can have that sense of normalcy both during Ramadan and after. Imam Anas also tells 12 News that the Mosque is offering several other services for members during the COVID-19 pandemic, including virtual Sunday school classes as well as outreach to members who are in need. You can find a complete list of those services by clicking here. Leader Imam Anas Shaikh tells 12 News while the Mosque itself is closed they are still offering a daily prayer that is live-streamed online as well as multiple online classes each day for the entire thirty days.
Photo: Korcula Tourist Board Applications are accepted until September 29, 2020 at the e-mail address: [email protected] The Korčula Tourist Board invites you to fill in the attached application form to express your interest in participating in the working group for the development of cycling / hiking tourism The Tourist Board of the City of Korčula invites all interested natural and legal persons (tourist agencies, accommodation facilities, restaurants, sports facilities, sports associations, etc.) from the City of Korčula to express interest in participating in the working group for the development of cycling / hiking tourism. – The aim of the action plan is to harmonize the activities of the main stakeholders relevant to the development of cycling / hiking tourism in the City of Korcula in achieving the vision, strategic goals, strategic priorities and measures defined by the Tourism Development Strategy of the City of Korcula, points out Hana Turudić, director of the Korčula Tourist Board. Determining the current situationDevelopment of an action plan for the development of infrastructure, services and promotion of cycling / hiking tourismStakeholder coordinationImplementation of the action planMonitoring implementation and reporting on progress With the aim of developing sustainable tourism in the City of Korcula, in accordance with the Tourism Development Strategy of the City of Korcula (2017-2022) and the Work Program of the Tourist Board of Korcula for 2020, the appointment of a working group and defining priority measures of the action plan such as: Side dish: APPLICATION FORM So logical and natural, and yet unexpected and rare. Well done to the Korcula Tourist Board for open access and a public invitation for everyone to get involved in the development of the destination. This is exactly what we miss the most – synergies and communication on the ground. Such an important synergy of the public and private sectors, as in the destinations themselves, we cannot move forward without it. Tango always requires two, and the first step has just been made by the Korcula Tourist Board.
Sydney’s slowing housing market is dragging down the rest of the capital cities. Picture: Jenny Evans. “Because it’s the largest market, it does feed into confidence in housing elsewhere.”Mr Kusher described Brisbane’s housing market as being on “a knife edge” when it came to its future direction.“We know the unit market’s quite weak, but it’s significantly more affordable than Sydney and Melbourne and migration into the state is picking up,” he said. More from newsParks and wildlife the new lust-haves post coronavirus23 hours agoNoosa’s best beachfront penthouse is about to hit the market23 hours ago GET THE LATEST REAL ESTATE NEWS DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX HERE Brisbane home values rose 0.1 per cent in November, according to CoreLogic. Picture: Richard Walker.BRISBANE is defying a national housing market slowdown led by Sydney, with new figures showing home prices rose in the Queensland capital in November. The latest home value figures reveal national dwelling values slipped lower this month, falling 0.1 per cent over the past 28 days, dragged down by Sydney’s cooling market.But Brisbane is bucking the trend, with home prices rising 0.1 per cent during the month on the back of a 0.2 per cent increase in October, according to property research firm CoreLogic.Sydney home values have fallen 0.5 per cent over the month of November following a half a per cent fall the month prior.CoreLogic research analyst Cameron Kusher said the slowdown in Sydney was impacting the national result.“The heat is clearly coming out of the market, largely driven by Sydney,” he said. Brisbane home values rose modestly in November, according to CoreLogic.Melbourne remains the most resilient capital city housing market, with values rising 0.5 per cent in November.Mr Kusher put that down to the city being more affordable than Sydney, with stronger population growth and lower stock levels. WHERE RENTING IS UNAFFORDABLE IN QLD BITCOIN ALL THE RAGE ON THE COAST THESE ARE BRISBANE’S CHEAPEST HOMES National home values fell 0.1 per cent in November, according to CoreLogic.If the trend continues over the next few days, it will mark the first month on month fall in the national index since March 2016.Mr Kusher said further falls in national dwelling values were likely in December, but it was difficult to predict how the housing market would perform next year.“We think further slowing in Sydney is likely, but we’re certainly not forecasting a crash,” he said.He’ll be watching what impact that slowdown in Sydney will have on the rest of the capital cities and whether it eats into confidence in other markets.The latest monthly figures provide further evidence APRA’S tightening of standards on investment and interest-only loans is working as a cooling measure for the property market.